Office of Security Capabilities John Sanders, Assistant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ACC/TSA Security Capabilities Day & Technical Workshop

Office of Security Capabilities

John Sanders, Assistant Administrator June 24, 2014

OSC Organizational Chart

TSA Organizational Goals

OSC has two goals aligned to the broader TSA goal of intel-driven RBS. OSC’s goals focus on enabling smarter investment decisions that support RBS, while also working with partners throughout the capability lifecycle to increase effectiveness. Intel-Driven Risk Based Security

OSC supports RBS through analysis and improved/efficient acquisitions, and OSO supports RBS through training and execution of risk based principles, processes and procedures in day-to-day operations. Both have a similar goal of using RBS to enhance and expedite travel and commerce.

TSA Organizational Goals

OSC’s goals and objectives for engaging the workforce focus on developing leaders, enhancing job

• pportunities, effectively managing employee

performance, efficiently hiring new employees, and improving communication.

Both OSC and OSO share a commitment to talent, and prioritize performance management and training opportunities, developing supervisors and managers into leaders, and improving the hiring process. This prioritization enables TSA to become a High Performing Counterterrorism Organization.

Workforce Engagement

Aligned with TSA’s third goal, efficient organization, OSC seeks to accelerate the process of delivering new capabilities to the user and to support risk-driven operations that provide effective and efficient security.

TSA Organizational Goals

Organizational Efficiency

OSC focuses on accelerating and improving the capability delivery process, enabling OSO to use those processes, capabilities and improvements to enhance risk-based operations.

OSC Strategic Plan – Timeline

Q2 Q3 Q4

2013

Q1 Q2 Q3

2014

Team Initiates Plan Development OSC Strategic Plan Published TSA Administrator Briefed on Plan OSC Action and Implementation Planning Plan Implementation Begins Employees Trained on OSC Strategic Plan TSA Administrator Briefed on Plan Implementation Industry Briefed on Plan Progress and Development Plan Expectations incorporated in performance plans Progress Monitoring and Dashboard Development

Calendar Calendar

ACC/TSA Security Capabilities Day & Technical Workshop OSC Strategic Capability Investment Plan Published

Annual Review

Strategic Planning Dashboard

Strategic Planning Dashboard

Strategic Planning Dashboard

OSC Strategic Capability Investment Plan Published on FedBizOpps.gov

• n

May 30, 2014

Security Capabilities Direction

“Over the next five years, the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) Office of Security Capabilities may invest $2.2 billion in technologies, infrastructure and capabilities to secure the Nation's transportation system.”

TSA Security Capability Investment Priorities

TSA Security Capability Investment Priorities

Aviation Threat Detection

Real Time Threat Assessment

TSA Security Capability Investment Priorities

TSA Security Capability Investment Priorities

Integration and Flexibility

TSA Security Capability Investment Priorities

Systems Engineering and Governance

TSA Security Capability Investment Priorities

Intermodal Threat Detection

ACC/TSA Security Capabilities Day & Technical Workshop

Office of Security Capabilities

John Sanders, Assistant Administrator

Discussion with Q&A

ACC/TSA Security Capabilities Day Office of Security Capabilities Briefings

June 24, 2014

Agenda

• Mission Analysis
• Aviation Checkpoint
• Advanced Surveillance Program
• Air Cargo
• Checked Baggage
• Test & Evaluation
• Acquisitions
• Deployment

Mission Analysis Division (MAD)

Keith Goll Division Director (Acting), Business Operations Division

Agenda

• Technology Screening Equipment (TSE) Segment Architecture
• Targeted Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Process
• Transportation Security Capability Analysis Process (TSCAP)
• Technology Harmonization
• Questions?

Technology Screening Equipment Segment Architecture

OSC Requires a Forward-Looking Architecture

A TSE Segment Architecture will help OSC achieve:

• Enable interoperability and modularity of transportation security equipment
• Reduce the cognitive burden on TSOs, increasing their effectiveness
• Facilitate the acquisition of components instead of system suite, allowing for modular repairs and

upgrades

• Assist programs in developing integrated technology roadmaps for future acquisitions
• Provide analysis to define technological requirements for future screening system
• Enable platform shift in screening capabilities
• Identify technological standards and equipment necessary to support further RBS implementation
• Develop and define risk-based functionality and automation in the screening system
• Provide common system understanding of how TSE will perform during screening and what data

will be employed to make RBS decisions

Standardization Acquisition Planning RBS Implementation

To further advance risk-based screening the Office of Security Capabilities requires a segment architecture to outline their current and future business and equipment needs to minimize acquisition risk when developing new capabilities.

The Transportation Security Equipment (TSE) Segment Architecture will outline the future security screening system, its components, and the relationships between them.

Future Architecture

DRAFT

TSE-SA will: Housed in: Informed by:

E.g. TSCAP Flight-by-Flight, TSA Risk Architecture IPT E.g. TSA-RK (OIA) OIT EA, TSA Risk Architecture IPT OIT EA STIP, TSA Risk Architecture IPT TSE-SA TSCAP, Flight-by- Flight, OSC Working Group

TSE Segment Architecture Integration with Existing Architectures

The TSE Segment Architecture (TSE-SA) will define current and future screening capabilities of TSA and leverage existing architectures and methodologies, to include:

Business Architecture Information Architecture Applied (IT) Architecture Screening Equipment Architecture

The TSE-SA seeks to define future physical screening capabilities necessary to enable an integrated and modularized security screening system that is risk-based, efficient and effective.

Leverage & Develop Leverage Leverage Develop = Architecture already in development = MAD focus area

OIT EA Governance

DRAFT

Benefits of the TSE Segment Architecture [OSC]

The TSE Segment Architecture will define current and future security capabilities and provide a structured approach to develop and insert new technologies aligned to capability gaps and organizational objectives.

Risk-Based Screening Quality Innovation Costs Re-work Acquisition Time

Further engage vendors and R&D centers to define and realize gains from cutting- edge technology Target TSE acquisitions on more cost- efficient technologies to maximize ROI Acquire and deploy equipment that meets standards based on end-to- end engagement Enable variability in screening by designing intelligent checkpoint & expanding pre- screening capabilities Improved planning and program integration will reduce time for acquisition Engagement with stakeholders and prioritized use cases will streamline development

The TSE Segment Architecture will provide TSA a structure to develop new screening capabilities to further implement RBS reducing cost and increasing efficiencies.

Targeted BAA Process

TSA Identifies Targeted BAA TSA Announces Targeted BAA and Applicants Submit 2-5 pp Concept Paper TSA Evaluates and Selects BAA Responses for Presentation Offeror Presents Concept, SOW, and Price Estimate TSA Evaluates Submission and Notifies Offeror SOW is Finalized and Awarded

Targeted BAA Process Overview

Phase 1: Topic Identification

(~1 month)

Phase 2: Solicitation

(~2 months)

Phase 3: Feasibility Assessment

(~1 month)

Phase 5: Concept Selection

(~1 month)

Phase 6: Award

(~3 months)

Phase 4: Presentations

(~1 month)

The targeted BAA process was designed to lighten the burden of the submission process on vendors and TSA while focusing submissions on near-term TSA needs.

Next Steps FY14:

• Finalize detailed timeline for the targeted BAA process
• Identify targeted BAA topics and select initial targeted BAA topic
• Coordinate with Office of Acquisitions to release initial targeted BAA topic – Expected in late FY14
• Conduct Industry Day to communicate targeted BAA topic and expectations

Key Process Changes

Attribute TSIC BAA Process (Previous) New BAA Process

Scope

Broad – one broad category seeking improvements related to security operations, technologies, processes, human-factors, and capabilities. Focused and Broad – several specific categories describing well scoped projects seeking specific solutions with one “open” category

Responsibility for Scoping BAA Project

Offeror TSA for focused categories and the offeror for the open category

Initial Submittal Format

12 page whitepaper or 28+ page full proposal 2-5 page concept paper

Final Funding Decision Submittal

28+ page technical proposal volume and cost volume Oral presentation, SOW, and cost proposal

Timing

• Annual
• Offeror submissions reviewed as they

come in without a specified time limit

• Semi-annual
• Offeror submissions reviewed on a

regular 6 month schedule

Funding Decision Authority

PMO with support from MAD Review Board (MAD, PMO, OSO, S&T)

TSCAP

What is TSCAP?

What does TSCAP do?

The Transportation Security Capability Analysis Process (TSCAP) is an integrated process that improves TSA’s development of security capability operational requirements. What is an operational requirement? A description of what the solution must provide in order to meet the mission need What is a capability? A means to accomplish a mission, function, or

• bjective (ex. Detect IED on

person)

TSCAP will provide a structured, repeatable, transparent process to develop requirements and enhance TSA planning.

What is the value of TSCAP?

TSCAP combines the relevant drivers for requirements into a structured method and uses a suite of tools that allow for analytic rigor and smarter decision-making.

• Establishes a stronger connection between strategic
• bjectives and requirements
• E.g. RBS
• Improved requirements for industry to meet
• E.g. ATR
• Clearer understanding of system functionality and the

impact of one piece not working correctly

• E.g. CAT

Benefits of TSCAP

LOREM IPSUM DOLOR This is dummy text it is not here to be read. The is just text to show where you could insert text. This is dummy text it is not here to be read. This is dummy text it is not here to be read. The is just text to show where you could insert text. This is dummy text it is not here to be read.

TSCAP’s outputs generate new value for OSC:

Holistic (Agency Level)

Conducted annually, across OSC and in conjunction with industry, to identify and prioritize gaps across the entire system and to determine requirements to close gaps

Program Level

Conducted in response to gaps or a specific driver to determine requirements for specific gaps

Specific Questions

Targeted analysis using TSCAP tools and data

Example: An annual refresh of the TSCAP capability gap assessment is

• performed. The cross-office effort recommends higher prioritization to

programs that improve analysis of passenger behavior. Both SOP and technology options are recommended for further exploration. Annual briefing to industry will describe outputs. Example: Taking emerging technology options and identified gaps into account , CTD explores possible options with industry that are analysed using TSCAP’s architecture and visualization tools and prioritized using Decision Lens. Example: Program teams or engineers executing a program need to revisit previous analyses to determine impact of changing initial assumptions or parameters.

The TSCAP Use Case: Checked Baggage

LOREM IPSUM DOLOR This is dummy text it is not here to be read. The is just text to show where you could insert text. This is dummy text it is not here to be read. This is dummy text it is not here to be read. The is just text to show where you could insert text. This is dummy text it is not here to be read.

Intel receives new information that homemade explosives (HME) concealed in checked bags are an emerging threat

Phase 1: Establish the TSCAP Baseline Phase 2: Identify and prioritize capability gaps

Phase 5/6: Document Operational Requirements & Handoff to Programs

Phase 3: Generate Alternatives Phase 4: Analyze and Select Alternatives

• Update threat

list with reprioritization of HME explosives

• Measure

checkpoint’s current state of performance

• Confirm with IPT

that there is a gap in detecting HMEs in checked baggage

• Document

recommendation and preliminary analysis of alternatives for the program office

• Program office

executes on procuring new technology

• Determine each

alternative’s impact

• n Trade Spaces
• Analyze each

alternative’s impact

• n architecture
• Facilitate decision-

making session to pick the best alternative

Technology Harmonization

Benefits of Harmonization:

Increases Security Effectiveness: Improves global aviation security baseline by raising minimum system performance levels to more effectively and efficiently mitigate threats to transportation in the US and abroad Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Efficiencies: Reduces industry development timelines and costs by focusing limited resources on a common set of global market requirements Drives Innovation: Incentivizes OEMs to become more innovative to distinguish product lines from competition (i.e. larger threat libraries, increase sensitivity, lower operating costs and increase reliability) Reduces Testing Burden: Harmonized detection standards and testing methodologies will potentially reduce demand on US/EU test centers through reciprocity and limiting assessments to unique requirements

International Harmonization Overview

TSA is working with our international partners to mitigate credible threats to transportation, to streamline technology priorities, and to align detection standards and testing methodologies.

Interested in learning more? Attend the Opportunities for International Harmonization: Perspectives from TSA, CATSA and ECAC roundtable on Wednesday, June 25th (1:45PM -3:15PM). Harmonization Step (TSA-EC) ETD AT/ACBS BLS/LEDS AIT/SS EDS

Information Exchange Threat Comparison (In progress) Requirements/Specification (In progress) Common Testing Methodology (In progress) (In progress) Certification/Qualification/Approve for Use

Technology harmonization will occur in phases over a number of years.

• A commensurate ETD detection standard was signed in April 2014 – Expected to be released through an ETD

Industry Day in late FY14

Questions

Aviation Checkpoint

Stacey Fitzmaurice Division Director, Checkpoint Solutions & Integration (CSI)

Checkpoint Solutions & Integration (CSI) Overview

• Ensure the most technologically

efficient and effective capabilities are available for screening passengers and carry-on baggage.

• Perform planning and execution of

acquisition, procurement and strategic planning activities for all checkpoint technologies.

• Manages and prepare equipment

recapitalization plans.

• Ensure compliance with acquisition

guidelines and policy.

• Oversee planning and execution of

budget activities.

• Coordinate with DHS S&T on R&D and

detection activities. The Passenger Screening Program (PSP) The Threat Assessment Capabilities (TAC) Security Technology Integrated Program (STIP)

CSI Division Priorities

• Aviation Threat Detection

– Accelerate development of technologies that increase passenger convenience by minimizing the divest requirements of screening systems. – Enhance the performance of explosive trace detection (ETD) systems. – Enhance and augment checkpoint imaging and x-ray technologies to improve detection, increase adaptability and improve the passenger experience. – Develop and deploy effective Credential Authentication Technology (CAT).

• Real Time Threat Assessment

– Enhance canine threat detection capabilities and broaden their operational utility. – Identify and optimize the factors that impact human performance in the screening of passengers and baggage to improve TSO performance. – Broaden behavior-based detection capabilities, screening capabilities and technologies.

• Integration and Flexibility

– Develop standardized technology platforms, interfaces and data formats. – Accelerate OSC’s Security Technology Integrated Program (STIP).

Select CSI Capability Investments

CSI plans and executes acquisition, procurement and strategic planning activities for checkpoint screening programs. CSI ensures the most technologically efficient and effective capabilities are available for screening passengers and carry-on baggage. Select CSI Capability Investments

• AT-2: Develop Tier II and Tier III.
• AIT: Procure AIT-2 systems in FY15; Develop Tier III.
• ETD: Procure additional ETD systems in late FY14. Establish new ETD contracts

in FY15.

• BLS: Establish new BLS contracts in FY15.
• EMD: Begin recapitalization in FY15.
• Boarding Pass Scanners: Procure additional BPS in Summer 2014.

Risk Based Security Impacts on the Checkpoint

TSA’s Risk-Based Screening (RBS) initiatives are driving changes to checkpoint processes and technology needs, affecting the types and configuration of lanes and the quantities of both TSEs and FTEs required to operate the checkpoint.

• ETD Right Sizing effort
• Multiple trial CONOPs

Actions to Date

• Modified FOC numbers to align with the changing checkpoint environment
• Revised PSP LCCE that aligns to RBS needs and goals

Result

• Analysis of airport drawings
• RBS driven policy/procedure changes
• As TSA works to expand the numbers of travelers receiving expedited screening by the end of 2014, additional TSA

Pre✓™ lanes are planned, reducing the number of standard lanes in operation. Technology needs differ between standard and TSA Pre✓™ lanes.

• TSA has established a working group to conduct predictive analysis of FOC numbers based on RBS goals, safety stock

requirements, throughput capabilities, and lane configuration

AIT AT2 BLS ETD CAT Updated FOCs*

930 2215 1660 2820 1450

*FOCs will be updated annually.

• Automated Real-Time Risk-Based Dynamic Passenger Screening
• Further Revisions to Technology FOCs

The Future

CSI Industry Partnership Priorities

Transparency Improving Test Readiness

• Increase Visibility into Requirements Development and Lifecycle

Processes Continue to share draft RFPs and Test Plans – early and often – and encourage input and comments from industry stakeholders.

• Optimize Qualification Data Package (QDP) Requirements
• Incremental Test Strategies
• Bolster Developmental Testing

Purposeful Innovation

• Focus Innovation for a Constrained Budget Environment

Set aside money for purposeful innovation Support rapid prototyping and field trials

Questions

Advanced Surveillance Program

Robert Pryor Division Director, Intermodal

Advanced Surveillance Program (ASP)

• Facilitates and uses locally generated requirements within the parameters of the larger program authority.
• Requests to participate are initiated at the local level and processed according to a prioritization matrix.
• Supports Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) with the transportation authorities; OTAs are not grants.
• The government gains access to systems supported by ASP funding.

ASP Mission Key Points: The ASP improves the security of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure by promoting enhanced surveillance capabilities and providing industry partners and agencies with expertise and knowledge related to surveillance methods that are effective and suitable. ASP provides funding to transportation facility operators for enhanced surveillance infrastructure and capabilities to support TSA requirements for security of critical areas Surveillance systems funded by ASP provide TSA staff and their partners with clear, detailed real-time images of critical areas covering security incidents and supporting resolution of liability claims

Program Highlights

Projects By Category

ASP FY11 Projects** Category Active Completed Total Category X 16 30 46 Category I 13 35 48 Category II 1 13 14 Category III 1 4 5 Category IV 2 2 Total 31 84 115

FY11: $20M $61,940,183

Expended ASP ARRA OTA Funds

OTA Total

FY12: $42M

Expended ASP ARRA Funds

FY11: $85M $280,668,698

Total Expended ASP OTA Funds

OTA Total

FY12: $132M FY13: $54M FY13: $164M FY14 Q2: $178,042,030 Q2 FY14: $55,710,084

Federal Security Director Feedback

"Having enhanced access to CCTV both at the checkpoints and in our baggage screening areas has proven to be a tremendous benefit to my overall screening operations."

‒ Michael Scott, AUS FSD

"The efforts of Ms. Lynn Sciascia and her team have helped strengthen our relationships and undoubtedly enhanced our security posture.“

‒ Bill Switszer, STL FSD

"[The CCTV system] has proved invaluable and has allowed us to monitor incidents and even disprove passenger allegations which has kept us out of the national news.“

‒ David Bassett, BDL FSD

No camera views

• r recordation

available to TSA TSA alerts the LEO and search occurs with available information Terminal is evacuated Passengers are rescreened Camera views available to TSA Threat is more rapidly identified; no impact to passengers TSA Views

Current State: A security incident delays operations, poses a significant threat, and increases costs to the transportation network. Future State: ASP will allow TSA access to real time images, facilitating information sharing and reducing the threat.

LEO and TSA receives real time image of threat

Security incident is detected Security incident is detected

Current State: Multiple camera views not located at critical checkpoints limits TSA’s ability to react to new threats quickly. Future State: ASP will provide TSA visibility to operations from a common security platform increasing situational awareness.

TSA presence at facility monitoring center TSA views added to existing airport owned video system Typical transportation video system does not include TSA views

Network

Facility owned remote video display Facility limited digital recordation

Network

Satisfy TSA recordation requirements Connects to security/ video only network Connects to security/ video only network No video access available to TSA TSO requests recorded views and delivers to Security Operations Center Video access available to TSA

TSA Views TSA Video Access TSA Views TSA Video Access

Current State: Limited visibility into passenger throughput and screening activities causes significant delays to operations. Future State: ASP will provide TSOs visibility of passenger throughput to anticipate surge and allocate resources more quickly.

Ticket counter Checkpoint queue buildup No camera views

• r recordation

available to TSA Monitor ticket counter queues Increased delays Camera views available to TSA Reduced passenger delays Deploy TSOs as required more efficiently

TSA Views

TSA Goal: Protect the transportation system from dangerous people and items that threaten its security TSA Goal: Manage risks to critical transportation infrastructure TSA Goal: Strengthen TSA

• perations and

management

Examples of how ASP meets TSA Operational Needs

The Future

Examples of interoperability standards that can be included in future efforts:

• Open Network Video Interface Forum (ONVIF)

http://www.onvif.org/

• Physical Security Interoperability Alliance (PSIA)

http://www.psialliance.org/

ASP Projects by Category

CP = Checkpoint CB = Baggage P = Perimeter Category Active Both CP+CB Only CP Only CB Completed Both CP+CB Only CP Only CB P Total Category X 16 12 2 2 30 16 3 5 6 46 Category I 13 10 3

• 35

27 3 2 3 48 Category II 1 1

• 13

8 2 1 2 14 Category III 1 1

• 4

1

• 3

5 Category IV

• 2
• 2

2 Total 31

• 84
• 115

Air Cargo Security Technology Program

Robert Pryor Division Director, Intermodal

• Air Cargo Security Technology Program (ACSTP) Overview
• ACSTP Key Initiatives
• Air Cargo Screening Qualification Test (ACSQT) background
• Air Cargo Screening Qualification Test (ACSQT) Process overview
• Air Cargo Screening Technology List (ACSTL)
• ACSTL Status – Version 9.0 (Release Date of 05/07/14)
• Air Cargo ETD Test Bed
• Air Cargo Research and Development Working Group (ACRDWG)
• Advanced Surveillance Program Update

Agenda

ACSTP Overview

• Mission

ACSTP evaluates and qualifies air cargo screening technologies to prevent explosive devices from being transported in air cargo on a passenger aircraft. Additionally, ACSTP aims to evaluate and qualify human detection technologies to prevent human intruders from invading cargo aircraft and using them as weapons of mass destruction.

• Vision

ACSTP strives to assess and test cargo screening technologies that are critical to the success of the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP), the 100% Screening Mandate, and air cargo security at large. These technologies include cargo screening equipment, chain of custody technologies, and the management of a pipeline for future, more efficient and effective cargo security screening technologies.

• Strategic Objectives

ACSTP Key Initiatives

ACSQT Overview

• Acts as the formal evaluation process by which screening devices are added to the Air Cargo

Screening Technology List (ACSTL).

• The ACSTL is used by regulated parties to procure equipment necessary to meet the 100% air cargo

screening mandate outlined in Public Law 110-53.

• Since April 2009, the program has evaluated 190 devices and authorized 109 for inclusion on the list.
• The current evaluation process is outlined on Fed Biz Ops Request For Information: HSTS04-12-

SSN-CT5513

• TSA designed the ACSQT in order to provide ample submission opportunities, evaluation flexibility,

and a workable test format.

ACSTP Overview

ACSTL

• The ACSTL includes three sections:

– Qualified

• Equipment that has passed a formal TSA sponsored test process and is

deemed qualified for screening operations. When procuring equipment, regulated parties are encouraged to select equipment from the qualified section.

– Approved

• Equipment that has been conditionally approved for screening operations

and is currently undergoing or scheduled for field test activities. Technology is eligible for use, but may be removed if testing is not successful; users buy the technology at the risk of it potentially being removed at a future date.

– Grandfathered (no systems currently grandfathered)

• Equipment that is currently approved to screen cargo, but has a stated

expiration date. This allows regulated parties who are using the grandfathered technology an opportunity to gradually phase out the equipment and transition to devices listed in the qualified or approved sections.

• TSA publishes new versions of the ACSTL as new technologies become qualified

through the ACSQT.

• A Non-SSI version of the ACSTL is available on tsa.gov, under Air Cargo’s

Standards and Regulations. The ACSTL indicates the equipment that can be used by air carriers, indirect air carriers, independent cargo screening facilities, and shippers to screen for domestic and outbound air cargo.

ACSTL Status

X-Ray Electronic Metal Detection Explosives Trace Detection

• Qualified: 80 X-Ray devices from 7 OEMs
• 28 Capacity A systems, 29 Capacity B systems, 23 Capacity

C systems1

• Approved: 3 X-Ray devices from 2 OEMs
• 2 Capacity A systems, 1 Capacity B system
• Qualified: 3 ETD devices from 3 OEMs
• Qualified: 6 EMD devices from 3 OEMs

Explosives Detection Systems

• Qualified: 15 EDS devices from 3 OEMs

1 See appendix for capacity descriptions

(As of Version 9.0)

Air Cargo Data Analysis (DART)

Data

• Current: Collect ETD testbed data from all

participants

• Next Steps: Collect industry and test bed

data from TSA regulated parties Insight

• Analyze data to uncover potential algorithm

improvements

• Begin forensic analysis on certain machines

currnetly used in the field Action

• Work with stakeholders to improve air cargo

transportation security

Iterative data analysis process that informs decision-making to improve security within air cargo transportation

Data Insight Action

Lab TSA S&T Vendor Owner/ Operator

Data Analysis Process

Stakeholders

Air Cargo R&D Working Group (ACRDWG)

The Air Cargo R&D Working Group will:

• Serve as the primary DHS/TSA vehicle for gathering sector-focused R&D Capability Gaps

across aviation transportation security partners.

• Engage federal, state, local, and private sector stakeholders, including air carriers, freight

forwarders, shippers, other TSA offices, DHS S&T, DOT and DOD.

• Capture and consolidate industry’s capability needs to inform DHS and TSA’s R&D.

The ACSTP is leading the establishment of an Air Cargo Research and Development Working Group (ACRDWG)

Questions

Checked Baggage Technology Update

Rick Phillips Division Director (Acting), Checked Baggage Technologies Division

Agenda

• EBSP Overview
• EBSP Key Priorities
• Recapitalization and Optimization
• PGDS Updates
• EDS-CP
• Key Initiatives Update
• Way Forward

Checked Baggage Screening

Explosives Detection System Explosives Trace Detector Bottle Liquid Scanner

Electronic Baggage Screening Program

Overview

EBSP is a mixed lifecycle acquisition program that identifies, tests, procures, deploys, and sustains equipment that detects concealed explosives in checked baggage. EBSP utilizes both Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) and Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) technologies for checked baggage screening.

• Successful execution of recapitalization and
• ptimization relies on visibility to, input from, and

coordination with airports and Industry.

• Technical obsolescence, which is the inability to

reach the next level of detection, will be a main driver for ranking future projects.

• EBSP’s rolling Qualified Products List (QPL)

acquisition strategy provides an open opportunity for vendors to qualify EDS.

• TSA deployed its first EDS-CP unit in June 2013.
• TSA anticipates the award of Medium Speed EDS

contracts before the end of FY14, and High Speed EDS contract(s) before the end of FY15.

• TSA will complete EDS upgrades to the 2010

Detection Standard before the end of FY14.

• Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are

working with TSA to develop algorithms for legacy and new EDS that meet the 2012 Detection Standard.

• EBSP is in the process of developing a Risk-Based

Security (RBS) strategy that aligns with the Agency’s priorities for risk based screening and leverages successes in Checkpoint

• Implementation of a Rapid Algorithm Development

effort that can help the Agency rapidly respond to emerging threats.

The Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) is currently focused on a number of key priorities that will enable the program to flex with TSA’s mission and improve TSA’s ability to rapidly respond to emerging threats.

Electronic Baggage Screening Program

Key Priorities

Recapitalization & Optimization EDS Competitive Procurement Detection Upgrades Technology Initiatives

$703M

In FY13, EBSP successfully obligated 30 Design OTAs and 30 Facility Modification OTAs across 38 airports; significantly fewer OTAs are anticipated in FY14 due to funding needs to complete current projects.

Recapitalization and Optimization

FY14 Projects and Future Project Selection

Operational deficiency will be the driver for future recapitalization and

• ptimization projects.
• Funding for optimization efforts is only considered after cost effectiveness analysis is completed to determine if

TSA should invest in the project and what level of funding TSA could contribute, if funds are available.

• If the results of the analysis are unsatisfactory, TSA will continue to support 100% of the costs of the

recapitalization project, as previously agreed upon.

• A Return on Investment (ROI) approach will be utilized in collaboration with airports to determine the cost

effectiveness of optimization projects.

• A positive ROI must be realized within 10 years to proceed with an optimization project without

additional funding required from the airport.

• Should an airport choose to pursue optimization instead of recapitalization, airports are responsible

for covering all costs beyond the maximum amount TSA can pay.

Future Projects

• Approximately $78M has been budgeted for OTAs in FY14. This figure is subject to change based on cost

validations and Office of Acquisition negotiations.

• EBSP planned to pursue two OTAs in 2014, with one OTA obligated to OGG in 13-Dec, and DEN outstanding.
• While some airports were awarded Design OTAs in FY13, TSA will only pursue Facility Modification

OTAs with those airports in FY14 if funding is available.

• Airports will be notified accordingly.

FY14 Projects

While TSA collects data and prioritizes units for recapitalization, airports will be asked to participate in planning efforts, if necessary, and to facilitate a site visit for TSA-OSC and contractor personnel.

Site Evaluation 100% Funding

• TSA will pay for 100% of the allocable cost

associated with recapitalization of equipment.

• No cost share will be required from airports for

recapitalization projects.

Cost Share

• Optimization efforts approved by TSA will include

necessary cost share between TSA and the airport for allocable costs and the recapitalization cost.

• Large and medium hub airports will be responsible

for a 10% cost share of allowable costs, up to the not-to-exceed dollar value of each project.

• Small/non-hub airports will be responsible for a 5%

cost share of allowable costs, up to the not-to- exceed dollar value of each project.

Recapitalization and Optimization

Airport and Industry Engagement

The majority of the initial recapitalization planning process is handled by TSA, however airports and Industry may be asked to participate in site evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis for

• ptimization, and/or funding of airport projects.

Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS)

Updates in Version 4.2

• Public comments on Version 4.1 received from 9/15/2011 through 6/1/2012 and

internal TSA stakeholders also provided inputs:

• OSC Engineering generated 159 response documents addressing all

industry changes and comments

• Stakeholders determined that a comprehensive evaluation of the PGDS is necessary

prior to developing Version 5.0

• Intermediate Version 4.2 addressing near-term needs was published on 5/5/2014
• Incorporates all industry comments that were accepted by TSA
• New content added by TSA was reviewed by Industry prior to publication
• Appendix F was removed and published as a separate policy document addressing

Checked Baggage Inspection System (CBIS) funding

PUBLISHED PGDS v4.2

• New forum established for collaboration between TSA and Industry on all future

PGDS rewrites, starting with the significant update to PGDS Version 5.0

• A PGDS Working Group comprised of Industry representatives and

stakeholders has been formed and is meeting quarterly

• A Technical Review Committee comprised of TSA stakeholders is currently

being implemented to facilitate the update and management of the PGDS in coordination with industry partners

• Estimated release of PGDS Version 5.0 is the end of CY14

DEVELOPING PGDS v5.0

The Planning Guidelines and Design Standards version 4.2 was published on May 5th, 2014; some comments were addressed in the most recent version, with a more significant overhaul anticipated for Version 5.0, estimated for late CY2014 release.

EDS Competitive Procurement (EDS-CP)

Rolling QPL and Detection Standard Updates

• Certification Readiness Testing (CRT) has been removed from the EDS certification process, which should

save both TSA and vendors time and resources.

• Upon successful completion of required testing milestones, EDS will be placed on the QPL.
• Previously, vendors were provided windows of opportunity within a specified timeframe to submit their

certified systems for qualification.

• These windows no longer exist, and an EDS may enter the certification and qualification process at

any time.

EDS-CP Rolling QPL Changes

• In June 2014, TSA announced that as of January 1, 2015, all EDS must meet the 7.2 detection standard to

enter testing.

• All EDS will be upgraded to the 2010 Detection Standard before the end of FY14.
• The next round of EDS procurements and upgrades will be to the 2012 Detection Standard.
• Deployment of these upgrades are expected to begin in late FY14.

Detection Upgrades

Any EDS that is currently in the testing process (including Certification) can continue through the testing process; any EDS that has not yet entered Certification by January 1, 2015 must be compliant with the 7.2 detection standard. Vendors seeking entry to the Qualified Products List (QPL) should take note of the following recent changes:

Key Initiatives Update

Risk Based Security & Rapid Algorithm Development

EBSP is currently supporting two key technical initiatives that will improve TSA’s overall security posture and ability to respond to emerging threats:

Risk Based Security (RBS)

In May 2014, TSA released it’s Transportation Security Strategic Capability Investment Plan, which

• ffered a high level overview of the Program’s

potential implementation of RBS for baggage

• screening. Key potential capabilities include:
• Enabling technology connected to Secure Flight

that provides both credential authentication and retrieval of the passenger’s risk assessment in near-real time;

• Networking of capabilities through the Security

Technology Integrated Program (STIP);

• Optimization of existing solutions through the

development of component technologies to “read” risk of bags in the BHS; and

• Enhancements to EDS that enable rapid

adjustment of the security posture.

Rapid Algorithm Development (RAD)

EBSP is working closely with EDS vendors to implement a rapid algorithm development model, with vendors anticipated to develop and deliver a new algoriithm within 10 weeks with a goal of <10% false alarm rates. Key objectives include:

• Establishing a model for rapid algorithm

development that can be utilized for other technologies;

• Improving TSA’s ability to rapidly respond to

emerging or immediate threats with new detection capabilities

• Reducing existing development timeline and

establishing a testing model that supports accelerated capability delivery

Both RBS and RAD will enable security agility for checked baggage screening and lay the foundation for future capability development.

Way Forward

What’s Next for EBSP?

• Efficient execution and close collaboration with airports, airlines, and the security

industry is critical to the success of recapitalization and optimization projects.

• EBSP will continue working with airports that received both their Design and Facility

Modification OTAs in FY13 to bring those projects to completion.

• Future recapitalization projects will be ranked on new criteria related to technical
• bsolescence. These projects will be initiated as funding is available.

RECAPITALIZATION & OPTIMIZATION

• Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are working with TSA to develop

algorithms for legacy and new EDS that meet enhanced detection standards.

• All EDS must meet the 7.2 detection standard by January 1, 2015 to begin testing;

EDS that cannot meet this standard cannot enter the certification process after January 1.

DETECTION UPGRADES

• TSA anticipates the award of MSEDS contracts before the end of FY14 and HSEDS

contracts before the end of FY15.

DETECTION UPGRADES

Test & Evaluation

Andy Lee Division Director (Acting), Operational Support Division

• Introduction / FY14 Goals and Objectives
• Test & Evaluation Challenges and Initiatives
• Vendor Collaboration
• Discussion of the Third Party Testing Concept
• Introduction of the Test & Evaluation Governance Board
• Other Current & On-going Efforts
• Participant Discussion and Q&A Session

Agenda

Introduction

• Accelerate the process of delivering new capabilities to the user that improve effectiveness and efficiency
• Improve collaboration and transparency with vendors early on in the acquisition and test processes
• Establish more open coordination channels with industry, with the purpose of providing context and guidance beyond

formal functional requirements documents

• Provide tools and processes to vendors and industry to facilitate more mature systems entering the TSA T&E Process

Goals and Objectives

As part of TSA’s goal of enhancing organizational efficiency, the Office of Security Capabilities is working to improve the execution of mission operations, with the intent of delivering capabilities to the field faster. Current Test & Evaluation processes are being examined and enhanced as part of this Agency-wide focus.

T&E Challenges

TSA OSC’s Operations Support Division has identified challenges across the Acquisition and Test & Evaluation lifecycle, yielding

• pportunities to enhance the method through which the organization works with industry to bring capabilities to the field.
• Collaboration with vendors / data

sharing for improved test preparation

• Implementation of policy covering

new processes for response to test failures

• Analysis of past T&E data to feed

the requirements process and determine appropriate risk mitigation strategies

• Optimal Operational Test sites
• Evaluation of technology test

readiness (QMP)

• Vendor collaboration &

transparency

• Strong collaboration and

communication during T&E execution (both internally and externally)

• Configuration Management process

improvement

• Clear external understanding of the

TSA testing process

Pre-Test Test & Evaluation Post-Test

Initiative: Vendor Collaboration

Challenge Solution

Clear external understanding of the TSA testing process Ongoing revision of T&E Process Guide Sharing of test plans and Communications SOP (over 80 documents shared to date) Collaboration with vendors / data sharing for improved test preparation Development of Vendor Communication SOP Improved tracking of document sharing Evaluation of technology test readiness (QMP) Revision / enhancement to management of process Implementation of policy covering new processes for response to test failures Development of possible incentives / penalties for inclusion in future contracts Optimal Operational Test sites Standing up permanent test sites

Initiative: Third Party Testing

TSA plans to streamline the T&E process over the next 12 months using a two-phased approach that will introduce Third Party Testing (TPT) into the T&E Process.

The efficiencies gained by OEMs adopting TPT can:

• Accelerate implementation of schedules
• Reduce procurement delays and time-to-market
• Improve return on investment and decrease overall cost of development

Phase 1- Require TPT to re-enter QT Phase 2- Use of TPT in Support of QDP

Limiting the total number of OEM attempts to clear QT to two (2) per Transportation Security Equipment (TSE) and after any significant failure, re-entering QT will be conditional upon the use of TPT. Encouraging Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to use a Third Party Tester (TPTer) prior to submission of their QDP, resulting in a more mature TSE and a stronger and higher quality QDP.

Results

Third Party Testing (cont.)

Third Party Testing business models: Evaluation Criteria and Acceptance Process: Following the use of a Third Party Testing entity, the vendor will submit a data package for evaluation by TSA OSC

Trust But Verify View, Witness, and Accept

• Description: TPTers conduct the test and TSA verifies

the test methodology and results against required QT test criteria

• Benefit: Reduces TSA testing time in QT and the

OEM’s reliance on TSA testing resources

• Description: TSA has a representative present

during TPT activities

• Benefit: Enables faster communication and feedback

that can be used by the OEM to enhance technology development

• Was a 3rd party tester used?
• What certifications does the TPT

have?

• Adequacy of the TPT test plan
• Results of the testing
• Statistical significance of the data
• Onsite validation of testing by

TSA Representative

Evaluation Factor Inputs Evaluation of Vendor data package to determine level of follow-up testing

• Full acceptance of test results
• Partial verification of test results
• Complete Retest

Flexible Test Response

Initiative: Establish Governance Board

Challenge Solution Evaluation of technology test readiness Establish a “Test Governance Board” to oversee all T&E Strategy (details below) Strong collaboration and communication during T&E execution (both internally and externally) Implementation of policy covering new processes for response to test failures The Board will accomplish its objectives by performing the following activities: 1. Providing executive direction for OSC T&E strategies 2. Providing a forum to engage, consult, and ensure collaboration and consistent messaging 3. Ensuring OSC T&E activities and strategies meet overall TSA goals and initiatives 4. Providing direction on improvements to the OSC acquisition program test and evaluation process. 5. Overseeing and providing strategic direction to the work teams focused on OSC’s T&E strategic initiatives

Function of Board

Other Current & On-going Efforts

TSA OSC’s T&E FY14 Budget is approximately $50 million.

Project/Initiative Overview On-going Testing AIT-2, EDS-CP, AT-2, CAT, ETD To date, TSIF has conducted 142 test events, 30 demonstrations, and 32 tours since the beginning of FY14 To date, completed 347 FAT and 359 SAT since the beginning of FY14 RBS Passenger Screening Security Effectiveness Concept Exploration Testing T&E Improvements TI&O ISO Certification Test Article Program Test & Evaluation Process Guide TEMNet

Questions

Acquisitions

Holly Hamilton Bolger Division Director (Acting), Security Technology Acquisition Division

OSC has identified five strategic capability investment areas over the next five years:

• Aviation Threat Detection
• Real Time Threat Assessment
• Integration and Flexibility
• Systems Engineering and Governance
• Intermodal Threat Detection

OSC will manage its investment in capability development and innovation by balancing pioneering efforts with immediate capability demands, and plans to manage its portfolio of investments as follows:

• f investments targeting “Transformational” capabilities, managing an integrated

and dynamic system

• f investments targeting “Core” capabilities, addressing known threats and

inefficiencies

• f investments targeting “Adjacent” capabilities, addressing emerging threats and

creating new efficiencies

70% 20% 10%

Strategic Investment Priorities

FY13 Industry Engagement Landscape

OSC’s FY13 industry engagement spanned 20 industries across 388 unique entities located in 176 congressional districts in 41 states. This included 81 original equipment manufacturers, 88 airport authorities, and 81 small businesses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% System Upgrade Program Support Airport Design Testing and Evaluation Strategic Advising Outreach Market Research Capabilities Development PGDS Vendor Showcase Contractual Non-Contractual

Engagement Purpose by Contractual Status OSC’s engagement spans a variety of industry types 31%

Original Equipment Manufacturer

21%

Professional Services

15%

Airport Authorities

28%

Other (e.g., Architecture Firms, R&D, Academic)

5%

Information Technology

Business Operations 4% Checked Baggage Technologies 26% Checkpoint Technologies 19% Deployment 3% Intermodal 17% Mission Analysis 7% Operations Support 8% OSC-Wide 16%

OSC Engagement by Program Area

OSC Acquisition Update

Jun 2014 Jul 2014

* * *

Dec 2014 Aug 2014 Jan 2015

* * *

Jun 2015 Sep 2014

* *

Mar 2015 Transportation Security Deployment Services (TEDS – System Integration (SI) recompete) Air Cargo, Intermodal, & Surface SI recompete

RFI Release Date Award

TSIF SI Support

EBSP Services (SPSS)

RFP Release Date

* * *

Note: Dates subject to change

May 2014 Jun 2014

* * *

Sep 2014 Jul 2014

*

OSC Acquisition Update (cont.)

Jun 2014 Jul 2014

* * *

Dec 2014 Aug 2014 Industry Day

* *

Nov 2014 New QPL opens Oct 2014 Industry Day

* *

May 2015 New QPL opens

Components of TESS1:

• TSIF Testing
• Acceptance Testing
• Operational Test &

Evaluation (OT&E) Bottle Liquid Scanner (BLS)

RFI Release Date Award

Explosive Trace Detector (ETD)

RFP Release Date

* * *

Note: Dates subject to change

1 Each component is a separate action

• Focus on industry engagement
• Increasing the number of awards to small businesses
• DHS strategically sourced vehicles will be used as much as possible, but will be evaluated every time for efficiency and

effectiveness

• Best value, trade-off source selections will become the norm for both equipment and services, using technical prompts

and discriminators vice generic technical proposals

• Smaller service requirements awarded "just in time" instead of larger, "draw down" structures
• Continued progression to fixed priced requirements
• Continued efforts to increase competition on equipment
• Obtaining technical data packages and rights to technical data

Ongoing Procurement Initiatives

Deployment and Logistics

Peter McVey Deputy Division Director, Deployment & Logistics

• D&L Division Overview
• D&L Division Goals
• D&L Division Priorities
• Opportunities
• Questions

Agenda

D&L Division Overview

The Deployment Division deploys equipment for both Checkpoint and Checked Baggage programs. Deployment was created from CPTD and CBTD in order to consolidate expertise for deploying and integrating systems into the field.

Checkpoint

Deployment and Logistics

Checked Baggage

Responsibilities:

• Coordinate across stakeholders for the

deployment of technology to federalized airports

• Support checkpoint design
• Support integration and training of field
• perations with transportation security

equipment

• Manage warehouse operations and

logistics

• Coordinate logistics of TSE maintenance

and repair Responsibilities:

• Program Scheduling
• Requirements

Development

• Funding and

Obligation Management

• DT&E
• OT&E
• Project prioritization
• Initial system design

phases Responsibilities:

• Solutions engineering
• Program scheduling
• Requirements

development

• Lifecycle cost estimates
• Funding and obligations

management

• DT&E
• OT&E

D&L Division Overview Cont’d.

• Deployments are organized through three

geographic regions: East, Central, and West.

• Deployment Coordinators (DC) manage the

movement and installation of TSE

• Integration Coordinators (IC) manage the

implementation and training of field operations

• Operations Branch supports acquisition

and contract management functions, checkpoint design, and asset management

• Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)

covers warranty and maintenance issues for TSE

• 1. Improve Stakeholder Communications

D&L Division Goals

Accomplishments

• Enhanced Site Visit and Deployment Installation

Coordination

• Conduct Lessons Learned to solicit input from the field

an enhance Deployment processes

• Initiated field surveys to solicit user input on key

Deployment processes

• Completed Checkpoint Design Guide (CDG) version

5.1 to update roles and responsibilities for equipment moves

• Recently released an RFI seeking industry input for

ways to improve maintenance contract competition

Opportunities

• Increase end user awareness of upcoming TSA

initiatives

• Institutionalize knowledge gained from regular lessons

learned conferences

• Use survey feedback to inform changes to Deployment

processes

• Enhance industry engagement around checkpoint

design including working group sessions to cover changes and best practices

• CDG version 6.0 is expected by the end of the

calendar year

• 2. Expedite Processes

D&L Division Goals

Accomplishments

• Working to merge AT and AIT movements to find

efficiencies and minimize the disruption airport

• perations.
• Created an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) provide

schedule forecasting for enhanced stakeholder communication and Deployment Requirements Definition; currently used to support integrated checked baggage projects with the goal to roll out to other deployment technologies

• Established the Governance Board on a bi-weekly

basis to unite the Deployment Division, Checked Baggage Technology Division (CBTD), and Office of Acquisition to present issues to the leadership for finalization of decisions regarding funding, scheduling/tracking, and project validity

‒ Created a repeatable process that is currently being evaluated for rollout to other coordination teams ‒ Obligation of over $600M in FY13 Facility Modification OTAs supporting Recapitalization efforts across 29 airports

Opportunities

• Explore efficiencies with additional joint deployments of

technologies

• Define enhanced coordination strategies for phasing

Recap and Optimization projects

• Further adopt IMS tools for additional technologies
• Continue to use the Governance Board framework to

expedite and inform management decisions and prevent program delays

• 3. Standardize Deployment Procedures

D&L Division Goals

Accomplishments

• Developed a Master Deployment Plan to display a

comprehensive view of deployment schedules, risks, methodologies, statuses, and strategies for both Checkpoint and Checked Baggage technologies

• Revised the Checkpoint Design Guide which

establishes the design process, guidelines, and approval for checkpoint construction projects

• Expanded Deployment Methodology Documentation to

define and standardize processes for allocating and deploying specific technologies

Opportunities

• Further enhance the Master Deployment Plan with

additional data and regular updates

• Communicate Checkpoint Design Guide best practices

with industry

D&L Division Priorities (Checkpoint)

D&L Division Priorities (Checked Baggage)

Questions